Not Your Party's Jesus

In his op-ed "Christ Among the Partisans", Garry Wills reaches the startling conclusion that Jesus would not have lined up behind the GOP agenda of tax cuts, moral posturing and ostentatious public piety. But he goes a step further, arguing that those on the left who would invoke Christ in support of anti-poverty programs are equally mistaken. Wills concludes that "Jesus brought no political message or program." In fact, by virtue of his "render unto Caesar" remark, Christ "was the original proponent of a separation of church and state."

The entire piece is worth a read. Wills' real target is not Republican theocrats, whose twisted and cynical use of religion is all too obvious. Rather, he challenges the growing consensus that secular-dominated Democrats must re-learn how to frame their agenda in the language of Christian values, and that such an approach might actually work.

What about all those Biblical passages usually invoked to support the "Social Gospel"? Wills has some fancy footwork ready:

But doesn't Jesus say to care for the poor? Repeatedly and insistently, but what he says goes far beyond politics and is of a different order. He declares that only one test will determine who will come into his reign: whether one has treated the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the imprisoned as one would Jesus himself. "Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me" (Matthew 25:40). No government can propose that as its program. Theocracy itself never went so far, nor could it.

The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice. If it is to treat the poor well, it must do so on grounds of justice, appealing to arguments that will convince people who are not followers of Jesus or of any other religion. The norms of justice will fall short of the demands of love that Jesus imposes. A Christian may adopt just political measures from his or her own motive of love, but that is not the argument that will define justice for state purposes.

To claim that the state's burden of justice, which falls short of the supreme test Jesus imposes, is actually what he wills — that would be to substitute some lesser and false religion for what Jesus brought from the Father. Of course, Christians who do not meet the lower standard of state justice to the poor will, a fortiori, fail to pass the higher test.

Whether Wills' view of Christ as an other-worldly figure, unconcerned with justice on earth, is theologically defensible or not, I cannot judge. But surely Wills is wrong to say that citing Jesus' words in support of social justice is substituting a "lesser and false religion" in the place of the real one. Particularly since he goes on to imply that such a commitment to "state justice" is a minimum duty of Christians. If so, isn't it appropriate to point this out? Even if Christ's words are not themselves a sufficient basis for public policy, aren't they at least relevant when people claiming to be Christians routinely invoke God in support of tax cuts and a more porous social safety net?

If so, then Wills' ultimate conclusion is not quite right:

The institutional Jesus of the Republicans has no similarity to the Gospel figure. Neither will any institutional Jesus of the Democrats.

It's hard to imagine the Democrats creating an "institutional Jesus" on a par with the Republicans' manly crusader. But if the Christian Left does succeed in resurrecting Jesus as an advocate of peace, compassion and social justice, would he really bear "no similiarity to the Gospel figure"? While such a Christ may not strike everyone as theologically complete, surely he would be a closer approximation than the vindictive avenger favored by many on the Right.

A more practical objection is simply that we cannot expect America's right wingers to stop invoking religion in support of their radical politics, notwithstanding Wills' argument. For Democrats to ignore the ample support available in the Christian tradition for a more just (and sane) approach to government would be spiritually and politically negligent.